Vanderbilt Law Review

First Page



Recent Board decisions such as Brothers Three Cabinets suggest that the Board has frequently contravened congressional intent by extending the protection of the Act to cover supervisors. This Note begins with an examination of the legislative history of the Taft-Hartley Amendments, focusing upon the congressional intent behind the exclusion of supervisory personnel from the protection normally afforded employees under the Act. The Note then traces the historical development of supervisory discharge law and analyzes the development of the "pattern of conduct" standard. Finally, the Note investigates the inherent analytical problems with the "pattern of conduct" standard, examines the inconsistent application of the standard, and criticizes the theoretical underpinnings of the standard. The Note concludes that the Board should abandon the "pattern of conduct" paradigm and return to the traditional "directly affect" test to determine whether a supervisor should be reinstated after discharge for union-related activities.